Author / Matt Landis

by Matt Landis

Mennonite World Conference Speaker Says: “Stop dreaming of a perfect & ideal church”

This morning at Mennonite World Conference in Harrisburg Pennsylvania Remilyn Mondez of the Philippines spoke on the subject of conflict in the church and featured a Nationwide Fellowship church from the Philippines quite prominently (although unnamed in the presentation, the above picture was used as backdrop during the story) in a story about a girl named “Lenlen”. In the story Lenlen’s parents joined a conservative Mennonite church who practiced “the holy kiss” and simple, modest clothes and which had a long history of objecting to higher education.  As time went on Lenlen’s family came in conflict with the local church because they wanted their daughter to attendant college. This conflict culminated with Lenlen’s extended family leaving the church and some of them going to a more assimilated Mennonite church while others ended up at no church at all. Remilyn Mondez sprung a bit of a surprise at the end of her talk and noted she was “Lenlen” and that her family’s move to another church was a very painful experience for her as a 15 year old who was separated from her social circle and took years to heal. She drew attention to the  fact that similar church conflicts hurt many youth caught in the middle by no fault of their own.

Could this story be read as a precautionary tale of divisively leaving even a conservative church one disagrees with?

Could this story be read as a precautionary tale of divisively leaving even a conservative church one disagrees with? Or is it rather a call for taking fewer or no stands on which congregants might disagree? This was not clarified.

Stop dreaming of a perfect & ideal church

Mondez’s advice to the MWC audience was “Stop dreaming of a perfect & ideal church” which was most certainly intended as a needed call to humility & forbearance. If it was a call to unqualified unity it is formulated very similar calls to unity & conformity by the magisterial reformers in the 1500’s which was often used against Anabaptists. Martin Luther summarized this critique in a short punchy line in a sermon given at St. Andrews church in Eisleben “There is no such thing as a pure church such as the Anabaptists want…”. While no church leaders in any period are likely in any delusions about a “perfect” church, the Anabaptists did have a dream empowered by faith that envisioned Christ could raise up a people capable of living a powerful witness to peace and agape. Thanks to early Anabaptist rejection of unqualified unity on this point with magisterial reformers, Mennonites around the world are heir to a very distinctly Christ like witness today.

Mennonite World Review also covered Mundoz’s talk:
http://mennoworld.org/2015/07/23/news/testimony-of-a-church-conflict-casualty/

by Matt Landis

Book Review: Keeping the Trust, Issues Surrounding the formation of the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church

Keeping the Trust: Issues Surrounding the Formation of the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church will be an eye opener on another era if you grew up in my generation in an EPMC or resulting church group. This book is of interest to me for several reasons: I grew up in an EPMC congregation which positively shaped me in many ways, I am now a pastor at a congregation that was deeply shaped by the EPMC events and the book was compiled/written by Kenneth Auker, a respected school teacher of mine.

Here are some random thoughts on things I found interesting in the book:

It is almost hard for my generation to fathom that at one time Lancaster Conference and EPMC bishops/ministry were brothers in the same conference, working on the same problems and challenges as brethren. A glimpse into this on page 214:

When an audience member took a personal jab at Isaac Sensenig during a meeting about who gets the Myerstown church building, David Thomas (Lancaster Conference) tells them “you can’t talk to my brother like that”. Later in the meeting an audience member is harsh with David Thomas and guess what? Isaac says ” you can’t talk to my brother like that”.

Some also ask how the plain suite came to be standard practice in plain Mennonite churches? p222

The plain suite, although widely worn at one time, was never a requirement at Lancaster Conference.

[My note: the conservative groups wanted to emulate those in Lancaster Conference who were in full support of the Biblical standards and so plain suites became almost ubiquitous]

And for what is surely scandalous for many conservative Mennonites of today, Lancaster Conference did not have a prohibition on growing tobacco up to 1954.

The 1954 version of the Lancaster Conf. Discipline did not forbid members from growing tobacco…but did “urge them to abstain from use, distribution, and sale of tobacco”…Isaac Sensenig quit growing tobacco in 1954 incurring considerable personal cost for conscience sake…p262

On page 262 the Lancaster Conf Bishop statement on TV makes points of concern reminiscent of Neil Postman and his later book “Amusing Ourselves to Death”.

I’d say this book is a must read for anyone interested in the history and background of conservative Mennonite churches. I was made much more aware of conference leaders like David Thomas (moderator during the period), Jay Paul Graybill and others. I saw Isaac Sensenig, David Wadel, Jesse Neunschwander, Aaron Shank from an angle I never saw before. The inline frank & personal memories of young people and others during the time is great for getting a sense of the times. (I only wish the writers names were right with the callout instead of at the end of the book)

The book gives the sense of disappointment and heartache of both Lancaster Conference and EPMC leadership that the “amiable schism” even needed to be. Sometimes this combination may not have been conveyed by EPMC leadership to the next generation because the message of concern about drift drowned it out. I think the heartache balanced with concern helps those of us who have not personally experienced the events have a much more sympathetic & understanding picture of what shaped those coming out of Lancaster Conference. I was also struck by the huge effort taken to ensure that in every way possible this would be an “amiable schism”. I’ll admit that the great efforts and passion to make it an “amiable schism” brought tears to my eyes and a little pride in my heart [you know, the good Mennonite kind] that Mennonites loved God and the Church enough to pull it off. Sometimes how you do something is as important as that you do it.

If you are interested in the conservative wing of the Mennonite church this book is a must read.

The book is printed by Eastern Mennonite Publications and available at their book store in Ephrata and I’m sure other stores. (did you just look on Amazon? come on…)

by Matt Landis

Is the Christian Question “What is torture?” or “What is Love?”

I’ve read the recently released “Study of CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program” report. [1] It surely cannot but make any Christian who accepts that these deeds are done in their name look at themselves and say “Who are we?” Are we truly as committed to “the means justifies the end” as we thought or does the image we see in the mirror that is produced by this formula shock us into reconsideration?

If we take some seriously we almost get the idea the most important question the image in the mirror raises is “What is torture?” This question neatly preserves “the means justifies the end”. But if we take Jesus seriously the question for the Christian is not “What is torture?” but “What is Love?” “What is Love?”, taken seriously, does not neatly preserve our previous ways of being.

Eric Metaxas, in a Breakpoint article [2], puts his finger on the right question by asking “Who are we?” but does not go so far as to ask “What is Love?”. I find it interesting that he quotes as the authority on why torture is wrong: Pope John Paul II and his encyclical “The Splendor of Truth”. I couldn’t agree with Metaxas (& Pope John Paul II) more that torture is “intrinsically evil” A question though is why do we look to Pope John Paul II, Rick Warren & others for input on how we should treat our enemies, but not Jesus Himself?

Jesus, in His best “selling” Sermon (which has incidentally been on the world “times” top 10 list for about 2000 years) said: “…I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” [3] Jesus goes on to say “What you do to the least of these my brethren, you did it to Me” [4] Are “the least of these my brethren” only starving children in other lands?

Why do we need to invoke 2nd party authorities to tell us “The use of physical and psychological violence to extract information ‘is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity'”?

I get the distinct idea Jesus is not only clearly against torture, but goes much further. Why do we need to invoke 2nd party authorities to tell us “The use of physical and psychological violence to extract information ‘is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity'”? Why can the Christian not rest firmly on the Ethic of Christ Himself? Would it require a too radical break with systems that depend on what Christ forbids?

Is it perhaps because Christ demands too much? Is Christ’s great Love going just a little too far? In asking us not only to not torture but to Love, to bless, to do good and pray…is Jesus’ Love asking too much? Is it because if we would take Jesus’ ethics seriously the ramifications are too radical? Is it because our current and ongoing ethics would fall under condemnation and “be slain” when clearly exposed to “the Sword proceeding out of His mouth”?

The questions are eternally valid: “Who are we?” “What is Love?”
[1] Study of CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf
[2] http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/26559
[3] Matthew 5:34-48: http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-44.htm
[4] Matthew 24:40 http://biblehub.com/matthew/25-40.htm

by Matt Landis

Evangelical Book “Wild At Heart” Inspires Violent La Familia Cartel

For some bizarre reading check out the La Familia cartel on Wikipedia. And I quote:

La Familia cartel is sometimes described as quasi-religious since its current leaders, Moreno González and Méndez Vargas, refer to their assassinations and beheadings as “divine justice” and that they may have direct or indirect ties with devotees of the New Jerusalem religious movement, which is noted for its concern for justice issues.

La Familia’s boss and spiritual leader Nazario Moreno González, (a.k.a.: El Más Loco or The Craziest One) has published his own ‘bible’, and a copy seized by Mexican federal agents reveals an ideology that mixes evangelical-style self help with insurgent peasant slogans. Moreno González seems to base most of his doctrine on the work by a Christian writer John Eldredge. The Mexican justice department stated in a report that Gonzalez Moreno has made Eldredge’s book Salvaje de Corazón (Wild at Heart) required reading for La Familia gang members and has paid rural teachers and National Development Education (CONAFE) to circulate Eldredge’s writings throughout the Michoacán countryside. An idea central to Eldredge’s message is that every man must have “a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue and an adventure to live.” Eldredge quotes from Isaiah 63, which describes God wearing blood-stained clothes, spattered as though he had been treading a wine press. Then he writes:

“Talk about Braveheart. This is one fierce, wild, and passionate guy. I have never heard Mister Rogers talk like that. Come to think of it, I never heard anyone in church talk like that, either. But this is the God of heaven and Earth.” [1]

End quote.

This is a good example of ignoring both Jesus’ clear call to love our enemy and the fact that God never calls His people to imitate His judgment or wrath. The judgment of God in the Biblical record is never depicted as a model for the behavior of Christians and even in the Old Testament God’s command to His people was “vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” [2]

John Eldredge objects that La Familia is taking his writing out of context, and I am sure he does not like that it is a “Christian” drug cartel that is using his words to justify violent retribution, but I would have to hear how Eldredge retracts this passage in his book before I say they are not taking it exactly as it was written.

[1] Wild at Heart, John Eldredge p35
[2] Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19